Table 5 Concordance and discordance of quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative surveys consist of 5-point Likert scale from “complete disagree (1)” to “completely agree (5)”

Concordance – Data Dashboard

Feasibility

The dashboard is a feasible intervention to implement (M = 4.9).

The data dashboard is a feasible intervention in practice. Participants note that it is easily accessible and usable by relevant staff.

Appropriateness

The dashboard is appropriate for clinic use (M = 4.3), with only one participant indicating neutrality on the dashboard being a good match.

The dashboard is appropriate for clinic use. Participants noted that the dashboard helps visualize the PrEP care continuum and is a useful teaching tool.

Acceptability

The dashboard as a highly acceptable intervention (M = 4.5).

The data dashboard is an acceptable intervention for adoption at their clinic. Participants report that the visuals assist with report and grant writing, as well as comparing their clinic’s PrEP care continuum outcomes to other clinics’.

Discordance – Qualitative Findings on Data Collection and Management

Feasibility

This survey measure (FIM) did not directly address perceived feasibility of the activities necessary to maintain the data dashboard. Therefore, survey findings do not demonstrate whether activity changes are needed.

The current activities needed maintain the data dashboard (e.g., data collection and upload) are not feasible in clinic. Also, certain data elements cannot be collected in a systematic fashion. Lack of time, staff availability, and funding were cited as primary barriers to ensuring proper data collection and management.

Acceptability

Surveys (IAM and AIM) assign different meaning to “appropriateness” and “acceptability” [22].

Surveys do not indicate that changes are needed to make the activities more appropriate or acceptable in clinic.

The Acceptability framework [25] used in interviews, however, considers “appropriateness” to be an aspect of “acceptability”. Therefore, interviews did not differentiate “appropriateness” from “acceptability”.

Interviews indicate that the current data collection process and protocol needs refinement to reduce burden. Participants noted significant workflow accommodations, such as the use of personal time, were needed in order to collect and upload for the data. Participants also indicate that a lack of staff availability, as well as the dashboard’s focus on prevention efforts, present barriers to the current data management protocol.

The use of a standardized template with requested data elements for PrEP encounters, as well as adjusting the requested data elements, would make the data collection process more manageable.

Clinics need to refine their EHRs to assist in accessing data on current PrEP clients.

Conclusions

• Surveys and interviews indicate that the dashboard is a feasible intervention, but interview findings provided more granular insights on the data collection and upload burdens.

• Due to the lack of time, staff availability, and funding limitations, the intervention is not feasible at this time for most partners; however, given refinements to the activities needed to maintain the dashboard, it could be in the future.

• Development of activities to support adequate data capture, entry, and management is key to ensure clinic adoption and use.

• Regional and/or nationally coordinated focus on HIV prevention is needed to assist with consistent and relevant data collection for PrEP clients.